I couldn't find anything more specific then what's quoted below. My guess is they don't have the exact language ironed out yet. But since they mention tax rebates you would have to file and meet the adjusted gross income criteria. If you don't file or meet the criteria...no check. That's my take on it...Check out:http://turbotax.intuit.com/support/kb/t ... /5462.html

"The plan will provide tax rebates of up to $600 for individuals and up to $1,200 for couples filing jointly, with an additional payment for families of $300 a child, and a minimum payment of $300 for individuals who pay less than that in income taxes.

Payments will be reduced for individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, with the wealthiest taxpayers receiving nothing. The Treasury Department said checks would be distributed beginning in early May, after the crush of the tax filing season."

i hate to complain about the economic stimulus program, but i have a huge complaint. due to the fact that one has to base the rebate on the 2007 tax return being filed first, my wife and i are going to receive zero. the reason is we had a windfall dividend and capitol gains situation last year and that took our income up over the 150,000.00 ceiling. we were taxed on our other income and social security very heavily including all of the fica taxes and yet after paying a total of over 42 per cent in state and federal and fica taxes, we receive no rebate. i know of many people that are in the same situation. so i get to help others receive a rebate and i get none. the presidents original stimulus plan would have sent rebates out to almost everybody who has paid taxes. the democrats although the wealthiest group in congress, dont want any tax cuts or rebates going to higher income groups tho we are paying the by far the greatest amount of the total taxes paid. what a dealdennis braunreiter retiredoro valley, arizona and a former partner in some lake property in the tomahawk area. my heart is always in the tomahawk area but the weather is too good here right now.

Nimble wrote:Factually, out to the top 50 most wealthy congressional leaders, 33 were republicans (in 2005).

The 107 Congress of the United States had 535 members. 287 of the members of congress were elected from the Republican party. Thats roughly 55% of the congress being Republican. In the illustration given, 66% of the wealthiest legislators were Republican. So that's about 11% higher than what the actual make up of the congress figures out to. Considering the sample size for the illustration is so small, less than 10% of the entire electorate, I don't see how the data is relevant. Media with an agenda can play with statistics in their stories to help get over a certain point of view. I do not dispute that the stats are indeed factual, I would just be curious to as how the percentage would change as the sample increased.